“My point is that absence of evidence as evidence of absence will (logically) always require additional information”
I understand hy yo uused the airplane example. My point is even without that the reality is that often the absence of evidene IS evidence of absence. granted this depends on the statment in question and preexisting knowledge (evidence) regarding what I am trying to convice you
but the reality is that there is always more information required for any stament to have meaning.
If I want to convince you there is a flea in the room, in order for that statment to have any meaning you have to know what a flea is. Ditto for an elephant it isnt a special case.
The key question is whether evidence should exist but does not. “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” is only true if you wouldnt necessarily expect evidence of its existence, like seeing a flea. If you would expect evidence of its existence liek seeing an elephant then absence of evidene is in fact evidence of absence.
thus your stament “The absence of evidence not being evidence of absence (without other evidence demonstrating why evidence ought to be expected in this circumstance) is self-evidently true logical axiom. ” while true, is quite limited
I dont think we are arguing. I am just poitning out that your caveat “always require additional information, i.e. evidence of why we should expect to see the evidence that we do not see.”
I s present so often that the rule “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” isn’t much of a rule at all.